Comprehensive coverage of personal injury and civil litigation

Appeals Court

May 25, 2015

The tobacco industry won’t have to include messages on their packaging indicating of them lying to American public, according to a federal court of appeals ruling in Washington, D.C.

The federal court of appeals last week ruled that tobacco firms are required to inform their consumers that cigarettes are made to be addictive. But a judge-panel allowed the tobacco industry some reprieve, indicating that companies won’t have to inform of them lying about the harmful effects of smoking.

The case began in 1999 when the federal government filed racketeering charges against numerous firms including Altria Group, Lorillard Inc., R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., and Philip Morris USA. The Justice Department believed that the tobacco industry was part of a long-running conspiracy to trick consumers the harmful effects of smoking.

Back in 2006, a federal trial judge in Washington ordered the firms to eliminate ads showcasing smoking issues, from harmful smoking effects to nicotine level manipulation on their “low tar” and “light” brands.

May 18, 2015

A federal Court of Appeals in San Francisco early this week overturned last year’s ruling that demanded Google to remove a YouTube video, in which an actress was seen to have made anti-Muslim statements.

A majority of the 11-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeal ruled that Cindy Lee Garcia’s video performance, the actress who objected her portrayal in the clip, called “Innocence of Muslims,” didn’t entitle her copyright protection of the film, which a three-judge panel from the 9th Circuit ruled in 2014.

In the absence of copyright protection, it was ruled by the 9th Circuit, that Garcia has no power to order Google to remove the video off YouTube.

The court threw out an injunction issued in the previous year that prompted Google to remove the film. It reinstated from an earlier ruling which found Garcia without copyright protection.

Garcia believed her performance in the film gave her copyright protection and that such shield would allow her to get YouTube to take it down.

May 11, 2015

Early this week, the Supreme Court in Sweden shot down Julian Assange’s appeal of a pre-detention trial order of a 5-year old alleged sex crimes probe. Assange is the living founder of WikiLeaks.

The SC in Stockholm maintained its lower court rulings by requesting a detention of Assange, indicating no reason to repeal it with the probe ongoing.

Since four years ago, prosecutors wanted to interrogate Assange on rape, molestation, and illegal coercion allegations made by a two women after his first visit in Sweden in 2010. Assange claims the allegations were false and has yet to be indicted.

Swedish prosecutors in March made an agreement to interrogate Assange in London, where he hid at the Ecuadorean Embassy for a few years to avoid being extradited.

It’s still not clear when the prosecutors will make their visit in London. They’re still in the middle of discussing details with Assange’s attorneys, including possible dates and who will be available during the interrogation.

May 5, 2015

A federal Court of Appeals made a ruling early this week saying that the police won’t require a warrant to track mobile devices of suspects, overturning a decision in a previous privacy case.

The 11th U.S. appeals court in Atlanta felt the government never violated any privacy rights regarding an individual who was convicted in a 2010 armed robbery and currently serving a prison sentence.

The case serves as the latest test of the Fourth Amendment privacy protection rights against unreasonable seizure and searches in today’s digital era.

In a 2012 court ruling, prosecutors offered cell tower location information that strategically placed Quartavius Davis and his associates near the scene of robberies. In order to acquire a court order for the records, prosecutors only had to show that data taken from a prepaid wireless service was relevant to the probe.

Two of the judges said the Fourth Amendment requires the government to attain a warrant prior to accessing any cell location information.

May 4, 2015

Joe Arpaio, an Arizona Sheriff, who filed a suit against Obama’s immigration policies were met with an icy reception early this week at the federal Court of Appeals. It appears reviving the case will be unlikely.

Arpaio filed the suit late last year, shortly after the Obama administration made the announcement of offering illegal immigrants, whose parents are permanent residents or citizens, amnesty from deportation.

He also argued that he has the right to challenge current immigration policies since the administration won’t allow the deportation of illegal criminals who wind up in his jail.

A judge last December dumped the case, indicating the sheriff didn’t possess any legal standing to take up the challenge since he wasn’t fully harmed by the current immigration policies.

The U.S. Court of Appeals within the District of Columbia Circuit brought up similar concerns on its oral arguments early Monday in Arpaio’s appeal.

The argument concentrates on whether the Sheriff has the right to force a suit, not on legal merits of his claims.

April 28, 2015

Early this week, the Supreme Court agreed to hear out a case that may make it a little easier for plaintiffs to enforce class action suits against Internet firms who are in violation of privacy laws and consumer data.

The case involves a suit against people-search website Spokeo Inc., regarding data it posted of a male from Virginia. The plaintiff, Thomas Robins, blames Spokeo for getting wrong information regarding his age, employment status, education attainment, and wealth, allowing other people to see him as being rich and educated than he really was.

Robins claims that the misinformation is hurting his employment prospects, leading him to suffer emotional, economic, and reputation injuries. A trial court earlier struck the case down, a decision overturned by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in the previous year, which handed the case the Supreme Court.

The suit is seeking a class action status and alleges violating the Fair Credit Reporting Act, a law regulating credits bureaus and setting standards on how consumer credit data is gathered, shared, and stored.

The Supreme Court early this week appear divided on one of the biggest civil rights cases in the country’s history: whether the U.S. constitution gives gay couples the right to marriage.

Questions from the justices indicate that they were divided on the issue. Justice Anthony Kennedy has the controlling vote.

The justices seemed to have conflicting ideas over not only landing the right answer to the issue but also trying to know how to reach over it.

The justices would’ve been content being on the sidelines. But a decision made last year from a three-judge panel of the Cincinnati Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit, ended up forcing their hand.

Early this week, a schedule for two arguments was set. The first talked about whether the U.S. constitution requires states to deploy marriage licenses to two same-sex individuals. The second debated whether states should recognize gay marriage to be carried out elsewhere.

April 23, 2015

The obstruction of justice conviction of Barry Bonds was overturned just recently by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which ruled his answer before the grand jury years ago wasn’t material to the government probe on the distribution of steroids.

Bonds, a professional baseball player, was indicted in 2007 for this testimony a few years earlier before the grand jury on the illegal distribution of performance enhancement substances by the Bay Area Lab Co-Operative.

Following a trial on March 2011, a jury charged Bonds on three counts for making false statements when he said of not receiving steroids and HGH from his trainer, Greg Anderson, and denied getting injections from his trainer or associates.

Bonds was then sentenced to a 30-day home confinement, 2 years of probation, 250 hours of youth activity community service, plus a $4,000 fine.

The 9th Circuit judge panel maintained the conviction in a vote back in 2013, but most of the court’s 28 judges who participated voted to have another judge panel to rehear the case.

April 22, 2015

Early this week, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to look into an insider-trading conviction of an ex-director for Goldman Sachs Group, Inc, Rajat Gupta.

The justices didn’t leave any comment on their rejection of Gupta’s appeal on his 2012 conviction for carrying out lucrative insider tips regarding Goldman to a hedge fund owner.

Gupta explained that the trial court failed to carry out evidence of his good moral character as well as other testimony that lacked any motive of him coming such offense.

Once a highly respected corporate director in the country, Gupta was slapped with three counts of insecurities frauds and a single count of conspiring to passing inside information to Raj Rajaratnam, a Galleon Group hedge-fund founder, who is currently serving an 11-year sentence.

In the previous year, the federal Court of Appeals, maintained Gupta’s conviction, affirming the usage of wiretap recordings at the time of the trial. His last resort was to get the Supreme Court to hear the case.

April 16, 2015

Virginia’s Supreme Court ruled earlier that Yelp is obligated to not reveal the identities of online users accused by a business owner of posting fraud and negative feedback about his carpet-cleaning firm.

The dispute before the Supreme Court in Virginia describes a complaint brought about by Joe Hadeed, a business owner of Hadeed Carpet Cleaning, Inc. in Springfield, Virginia, who claimed his business was bombarded with harsh reviews in 2012. He filed a suit against several online reviewers for defamation and demanded Yelp to reveal their true identities.

Hadeed believed that the posted reviews were made by fellow competitors and says his sales took a nose dive after negative comments were posted online. Yelp argued that without proof, users had the First Amendment right to post without revealing their identity.

The state trial court and Court of Appeals sided with Hadeed, holding Yelp responsible for contempt for not revealing the identities of users.

Justices looking into the case felt that the lower court lacked the authority for revealing the Yelp reviewers.